{"id":122229,"date":"2006-01-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-01-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-jeyasheela-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-17-january-2006"},"modified":"2016-08-26T12:32:49","modified_gmt":"2016-08-26T07:02:49","slug":"s-jeyasheela-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-17-january-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-jeyasheela-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-17-january-2006","title":{"rendered":"S.Jeyasheela vs The Joint Registrar Of on 17 January, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">S.Jeyasheela vs The Joint Registrar Of on 17 January, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n In the High Court of Judicature at Madras\n\nDated: 17\/01\/2006 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.SUDHAKAR    \n\nW.P.No.15989 of 1996  \n\nS.Jeyasheela                               .. Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Joint Registrar of\n   Co-operative Societies,\n   Nagercoil,\n   Kanyakumari District.\n\n2. Thalakulam Eraniel Farmers \n     Service Co-operative Society Ltd.,\n   Monday Market, \n   Neyyoor Post, Kanyakumari District,\n   Rep. by its Special Officer.\n\n3. S.Sam Sundar                                            .. Respondents\n\n\n        Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of  the  Constitution  of  India\npraying for issuance of a writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating\nto  the  proceedings  of  the  second  respondent  dated  31.12.199  3 and the\nproceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.4335\/94, dated 22.5.1996,  and\nquash the same. \n\n!For Petitioner         :  Mr.Edwing for\n                        M\/s.P.T.Perumal\n\n^For R1                 :  Mr.Sanjay Ramaswamy\n                        Govt.  Advocate\nFor R2                  :  Mr.A.R.Nixon\nFor R3                  :  No appearance\n\n:O R D E R \n<\/pre>\n<p>        The  writ  petition  has been filed challenging the proceedings of the<br \/>\nsecond respondent dated 31.12.1993 and the proceedings of the first respondent<br \/>\nin Na.Ka.No.4335\/94, dated 22.05.1996.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  The case of the petitioner is that she was employed as  Accountant<br \/>\nin  the  second  respondent  society,  three charge memos, were served on her.<br \/>\nCriminal proceedings were  also  initiated.    The  second  respondent-Society<br \/>\nappointed  Mr.Sam  Sundar, Advocate as the Enquiry Officer in the departmental<br \/>\nproceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.  Petitioner filed Civil Suit in O.S.No.396 of 1993 on the  file  of<br \/>\nthe  District  Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram, questioning the suspension order<br \/>\ndated 12.04.1993 passed against the writ petitioner.    The  third  respondent<br \/>\nMr.Sam   Sunder,   Advocate   filed   a   vakalat  on  behalf  of  the  second<br \/>\nrespondent-Society and  contested  the  case  on  merits.     Therefore,   the<br \/>\npetitioner  objected  to  the  appointment  of the Third respondent as Enquiry<br \/>\nOfficer, however, the enquiry  proceeded  further  and  the  third  respondent<br \/>\nframed  charges  against  the  writ  petitioner  and  conducted  the  enquiry.<br \/>\nAccording to the writ petitioner, the Enquiry  Officer\/third  respondent,  who<br \/>\nwas  the  counsel for the second respondent was biased and hostile towards the<br \/>\npetitioner.  The petitioner did not participate in  the  proceedings  and  the<br \/>\nenquiry was  conducted  ex-parte.   The report of the enquiry was submitted to<br \/>\nthe second respondent by report dated 6.9.1993 and the  petitioner  was  found<br \/>\nguilty of  all  the  charges.  On the basis of the enquiry report a show cause<br \/>\nnotice was issued calling for explanation as to why petitioner should  not  be<br \/>\ndismissed from service.   This notice was received 0n 25 .10.1 993.  By letter<br \/>\ndated 28.10.93 petitioner requested for 30 days time to  reply.    By  another<br \/>\nletter dated 28.10.93 the petitioner complained that no proper opportunity was<br \/>\ngiven  in spite of pleading for time on health grounds and further objected to<br \/>\nthe appointment of third respondent as enquiry officer  and  wanted  to  cross<br \/>\nexamine  the witnesses who have deposed against the petitioner and stated that<br \/>\nthe reply will be submitted thereafter.  The second  respondent  rejected  the<br \/>\nrequest  on  the  ground  that the intention of the petitioner is to delay the<br \/>\ndisciplinary enquiry.  Therefore, the petitioner was dismissed from service by<br \/>\nthe impugned order of the Special Officer dated 31.12.1993 .  As  against  the<br \/>\norder  of  the  Special  Officer dated 31.12.1993, the writ petitioner filed a<br \/>\nrevision before the first respondent on 15.03 .1 994.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.  The contention of the petitioner in  the  revision  was  that  the<br \/>\nthird  respondent herein is the counsel for the second respondent in the civil<br \/>\nsuit filed by the petitioner and the third respondent having been appointed as<br \/>\nthe Enquiry Officer, the proceedings were violative of principles  of  Natural<br \/>\nJustice and biased and has caused prejudice to her.  That the third respondent<br \/>\nis hostile and biased against the petitioner.  The revision was disposed of on<br \/>\n22.05.1996.   The  counsel  for  the petitioner would submit that the revision<br \/>\npetition was dismissed, without considering  the  various  contentions  raised<br \/>\nbefore  the  authority,  and  the order of the first respondent confirming the<br \/>\ndismissal order of the second respondent dated 31.12.1993 is bad and  contrary<br \/>\nto principles of Natural Justice and inherently defective.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.  A  counter has been filed by the first respondent.  The contention<br \/>\non behalf of the first respondent is that the writ petitioner who was  working<br \/>\nin  the  Society  was suspended on 12.4.1993, on account of involvement in the<br \/>\nlarge scale misappropriation.    The  charges  were  framed,  against  her  on<br \/>\ndifferent dates and the same were served on her.  No explanation was submitted<br \/>\nby the  petitioner.  The petitioner wanted certain documents which were given.<br \/>\nFurther, she did not submit her explanation, but filed O.S.No.396 of  1993  on<br \/>\nthe  file  of the District Munsif Court, challenging the suspension, which was<br \/>\ndismissed.  The Special Officer instituted Domestic  Enquiry,  but  petitioner<br \/>\nleft  the  enquiry  in the middle and thereafter did not attend the enquiry at<br \/>\nall and the Domestic enquiry officer filed a report.  Based on the  report,  a<br \/>\nsecond  show  cause notice was issued with regard to punishment, for which, no<br \/>\nreply was submitted by the petitioner.  On the basis of the findings, the writ<br \/>\npetitioner was dismissed from  service  with  effect  from  31.12.1993.    The<br \/>\nrevision  petition filed by the petitioner under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nCo-operative Societies Act, 1983 was also dismissed  on  merits.    The  first<br \/>\nrespondent&#8217;s  contention  is  that  there  is  no  legal  bar in taking up the<br \/>\ndomestic enquiry by the legal advisor, that the third respondent did not frame<br \/>\nthe charges and it was the second respondent who had framed the charges and it<br \/>\nwas also the second respondent who issued the second show cause notice to  the<br \/>\nwrit  petitioner,  that the writ petitioner did not submit any explanation and<br \/>\ntherefore, based on the report of the Enquiry Officer, and  the  materials  on<br \/>\nrecord, the  writ  petitioner  was  dismissed from service on 31.12.1993.  The<br \/>\nfirst respondent has also made an  elaborate  enquiry  into  the  matter,  and<br \/>\nconfirmed the  order  of  the  dismissal.    The  charges  framed  against the<br \/>\npetitioner are very serious in nature and the writ  petitioner  colluded  with<br \/>\nthe other staff of the Society and misappropriated huge amounts and therefore,<br \/>\nsought for dismissal of the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.   Learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner would submit that his only<br \/>\ncontention  in  this  writ  petition  is  that  appointment   of   the   third<br \/>\nrespondent-Advocate   as   the   Enquiry   Officer  has  seriously  prejudiced<br \/>\npetitioners case as the third respondent is biased having appeared against the<br \/>\npetitioner in the civil suit filed,  defending  the  order  of  suspension  on<br \/>\nbehalf of  the second respondent.  In this connection, the learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe petitioner invited the attention  of  this  Court  to  the  Memorandum  of<br \/>\nRevision  Petition  filed  before  the first respondent and referred to letter<br \/>\ndated 28.10.1993 which is at paragraph 7 of the said  Memorandum  of  Revision<br \/>\nPetition and also to ground 10(a) of the grounds of revision.  That the second<br \/>\nrespondent  who  passed the order of punishment dismissing the petitioner from<br \/>\nservice was a witness in the enquiry proceedings.  It is also contended by the<br \/>\ncounsel for the petitioner that a serious punishment by way of dismissal  from<br \/>\nservice  has  been  imposed  on  the  petitioner  and no proper opportunity to<br \/>\nexplaining her case was granted.  The  first  respondent\/revisional  authority<br \/>\nmerely recorded all the contentions made by the petitioner and respondent.  In<br \/>\nparagraph  2  of  the  order  dated  22.5.1996,  the  first  respondent, after<br \/>\nextracting the contentions of the petitioner  and  submissions  filed  by  the<br \/>\nSociety  in  detail,  dismissed the revision petition without any reasoning or<br \/>\ndiscussion on the objections made.  There is total non  application  of  mind.<br \/>\nThe order of the dismissal is cryptic and therefore has to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.   On a perusal of the order of the first respondent, it is apparent<br \/>\nthat  the  relevant  objections  raised  by  the  petitioner  have  not   been<br \/>\nconsidered, except stating that the charges framed against the writ petitioner<br \/>\nare very  serious.    The first respondent rejected the plea of the petitioner<br \/>\nthat the action taken against her  is  bad,  that  the  petitioner  should  be<br \/>\nreinstated.  The first respondent confirmed the order of dismissal.  The first<br \/>\nrespondent has not considered the plea of prejudice and the allegation of bias<br \/>\nagainst the  Enquiry  Officer  at all.  The learned counsel for the petitioner<br \/>\nalso brought to the attention of this  Court  to  the  order  dated  16.3.2000<br \/>\npassed in  W.P.    NO.1602  9  of  1996  in respect of another employee,namely<br \/>\nT.Paulian, who was working in the  very  same  second  respondent-Society  and<br \/>\nfaced similar  charges.    In  that  writ petition, this Court passed an order<br \/>\nsetting aside the order of dismissal and  ordered  enquiry  afresh  by  a  new<br \/>\nenquiry officer.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.   The  second  respondent  who  passed  the order of dismissal is a<br \/>\nwitness  in  the  enquiry  proceedings,  against  the  writ  petitioner,   and<br \/>\nthereafter  based  on enquiry report the second respondent passed the order of<br \/>\ndismissal.   Further,  the  third  respondent  having  defended   the   second<br \/>\nrespondent  in  the civil suit in the proceedings initiated by the petitioner,<br \/>\nought not to have conducted the enquiry proceedings, and the plea of bias will<br \/>\nhold good against the third respondent.  Therefore, the petitioner  plea  that<br \/>\nrules  of  natural  justice  have  been  violated and grave prejudice has been<br \/>\ncaused to the writ petitioner has to be accepted and the order of dismissal is<br \/>\nliable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.      In this case, the petitioner has  been  repeatedly  requesting<br \/>\nthe  second respondent to change the Enquiry Officer on the ground of bias and<br \/>\npersonal prejudice.  However, this plea was not taken  into  consideration  at<br \/>\nall and the enquiry was completed and the order of dismissal was passed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.   On  a  perusal of the order of the first respondent, it is clear<br \/>\nthat the first respondent confirmed the order of the second respondent inspite<br \/>\nof the specific objections made by the writ petitioner about  the  continuance<br \/>\nof the third respondent as Enquiry Officer.\n<\/p>\n<p>        11.  In  AIR  1958 SC 86 (State of U.P.Vs.  Mohd.Nooh), the Apex Court<br \/>\nhad an occasion to deal with the issue of bias.  In that case, when one of the<br \/>\nwitnesses against the employee turned hostile, the officer holding the enquiry<br \/>\nthen left the enquiry and gave evidence against the employee  and  thereafter,<br \/>\nresumed to  complete  the enquiry and passed the order of dismissal.  The Apex<br \/>\nCourt quashed the order of dismissal holding  inter-alia  that  the  rules  of<br \/>\nnatural justice  were  grievously violated.  In the same judgment in paragraph<br \/>\n11, it is held as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;Where the error, irregularity or illegality touching jurisdiction  or<br \/>\nprocedure  committed  by an inferior Court or Tribunal of first instance is so<br \/>\npatent and loudly obstrusive that it leaves on its decision an indelible stamp<br \/>\nof infirmity or infirmity or vice which cannot  be  obliterated  or  cured  on<br \/>\nappeal or  revision.   If an inferior Court or Tribunal of first instance acts<br \/>\nwholly  without  jurisdiction  or  patently  in  excess  of  jurisdiction   or<br \/>\nmanifestly conducts the proceedings before it in a manner which is contrary to<br \/>\nthe  rules  of  natural  justice and all accepted rules of procedure and which<br \/>\noffends the superior Court&#8217;s sense of fair play, the superior  Court  may,  we<br \/>\nthink,  quite  properly  exercise  its  power to issue the prerogative writ of<br \/>\ncertiorari to correct the error of the Court or Tribunal  of  first  instance,<br \/>\neven  if  an  appeal  to  another inferior Court or Tribunal was available and<br \/>\nrecourse was not had to it or if recourse was had to it, it confirmed what  ex<br \/>\nfacie was a nullity for reasons aforementioned.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>In  another  reported  case, the Apex Court in AIR 1988 SC 2232 ( Secretary to<br \/>\nGovt.  Transport Dept.  Vs.  Munusamy), dealt with the issue of bias and  held<br \/>\nthat the  deciding authority must be impartial and without bias.  Further, the<br \/>\nplea of bias was affirmed in another decision reported in  AIR  1993  SC  2155<br \/>\n(R.L.Sharma Vs.  Managing Committee, Dr.  Hari Ram (C0-edn.) H.S.School.\n<\/p>\n<p>        12.  In  a  case  reported  in 2005 (6) SCC 321 (CANARA BANK Vs.  V.K.<br \/>\nAWASTHY), the Supreme Court while dealing with the question  of  violation  of<br \/>\nprinciples  of  natural  justice has referred to the well-known principle that<br \/>\n&#8220;justice should not only be done, but should manifestly be seen to be done&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>        13.  Therefore, for the reasons aforesaid the proceedings impugned  in<br \/>\nthe  writ petitions are set aside and the second respondentSociety is directed<br \/>\nto a appoint member of the Bar with 20 years standing as  Enquiry  Officer  or<br \/>\nany such  competent  person  as  per  law.  The Enquiry Officer is directed to<br \/>\nprovide reasonable opportunity to the employer and the writ petitioner to  let<br \/>\nin  evidence  in  support of their case and the enquiry as directed, should be<br \/>\ncompleted as expeditiously as possible  preferably  within  a  period  of  two<br \/>\nmonths on appointment of the Enquiry Officer.\n<\/p>\n<p>        14.  The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>sgl<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court S.Jeyasheela vs The Joint Registrar Of on 17 January, 2006 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 17\/01\/2006 Coram The Hon&#8217;ble Mr.Justice R.SUDHAKAR W.P.No.15989 of 1996 S.Jeyasheela .. Petitioner -Vs- 1. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 2. Thalakulam Eraniel Farmers Service Co-operative Society Ltd., Monday Market, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-122229","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>S.Jeyasheela vs The Joint Registrar Of on 17 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-jeyasheela-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-17-january-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.Jeyasheela vs The Joint Registrar Of on 17 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-jeyasheela-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-17-january-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-01-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-26T07:02:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-jeyasheela-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-17-january-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-jeyasheela-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-17-january-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.Jeyasheela vs The Joint Registrar Of on 17 January, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-01-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-26T07:02:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-jeyasheela-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-17-january-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1939,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-jeyasheela-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-17-january-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-jeyasheela-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-17-january-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-jeyasheela-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-17-january-2006\",\"name\":\"S.Jeyasheela vs The Joint Registrar Of on 17 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-01-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-26T07:02:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-jeyasheela-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-17-january-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-jeyasheela-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-17-january-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-jeyasheela-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-17-january-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.Jeyasheela vs The Joint Registrar Of on 17 January, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"S.Jeyasheela vs The Joint Registrar Of on 17 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-jeyasheela-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-17-january-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.Jeyasheela vs The Joint Registrar Of on 17 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-jeyasheela-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-17-january-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-01-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-26T07:02:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-jeyasheela-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-17-january-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-jeyasheela-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-17-january-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.Jeyasheela vs The Joint Registrar Of on 17 January, 2006","datePublished":"2006-01-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-26T07:02:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-jeyasheela-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-17-january-2006"},"wordCount":1939,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-jeyasheela-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-17-january-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-jeyasheela-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-17-january-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-jeyasheela-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-17-january-2006","name":"S.Jeyasheela vs The Joint Registrar Of on 17 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-01-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-26T07:02:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-jeyasheela-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-17-january-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-jeyasheela-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-17-january-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-jeyasheela-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-17-january-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.Jeyasheela vs The Joint Registrar Of on 17 January, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/122229","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=122229"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/122229\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=122229"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=122229"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=122229"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}